Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knopf v. Sanford

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

October 15, 2013

Michael I. Knopf, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Michael Hayden Sanford, et al., Defendants-Respondents Michael I. Knopf, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Michael Hayden Sanford, Defendant-Respondent

Berry Law PLLC, New York (Eric W. Berry of counsel), for appellants.

Michael Hayden Sanford, respondent pro se.

Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLP, Poughkeepsie (Jon H. Adams of counsel), for Pursuit Holdings, LLC, Sanford Partners, LP, MH Sanford & Co., LLC and Wyndclyffe, LLC, respondents.

Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman, Gische, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 11, 2012, which denied plaintiffs' motion to extend the notices of pendency, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the notices of pendency, filed on September 18, 2009, extended for a period of 3 years from the date of expiration of the notices.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts a cause of action for a constructive trust, and alleges that defendant Michael Sanford promised, in exchange for certain loans, that he would purchase two properties for the benefit of the subject hedge fund and provide plaintiffs with a mortgage on those properties, but has refused to transfer the properties to the hedge fund or to plaintiffs. This cause of action, as pleaded, was sufficient to support the issuance of the subject notices of pendency, since it seeks a judgment that "would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property" (CPLR 6501; Mazzei v Kyriacou, 98 A.D.3d 1088, 1090 [2d Dept 2012]).

Plaintiffs established good cause for extending the notices of pendency (see CPLR 6513). The evidence shows that the delay in ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss resulted in a stay of discovery and significantly delayed the adjudication of the action (see L & L Painting Co. v Columbia Sussex Corp., 225 A.D.2d 670, 670-671 [2d Dept 1996]).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.